LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
February 25, 1997
TO: Honorable Teel Bivins, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 136
Committee on Education By: Bivins
Senate
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB136 ( Relating
to placement of a student who is expelled from public school
in a juvenile justice alternative education program.) this office
has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB136-As Introduced
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
negative impact of $(7,461,720) to General Revenue Related Funds
through the biennium ending August 31, 1999.
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal
basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions
of the bill.
The bill would require the juvenile courts in
22 counties with populations of 125,000 to place all students
expelled from the public schools in Juvenile Justice Alternative
Schools.
Fiscal Analysis
This bill requires all students expelled from schools to be
placed in Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs (JJAEPs)
in the counties that are mandated to provide JJAEPs. As provided,
if juvenile courts are required to adjudicate all students expelled,
the number of county probation officers would increase to supervise
the additional students adjudicated.
Methodolgy
The Texas Education Agency's 1995-96 school year Safe Schools
Survey totaled 5,601 expulsions statewide, of which slightly
more than half (3,569) were reported as the total number of
expulsions by school districts in the 22 mandated counties.
Further analysis of the TEA data trends statewide show "serious
or persistent misbehavior" (Section 37.007 [b], Education Code)
as the most frequently cited reason for student expulsions--4,036
expulsions out of a total of 6,210 reported from 841 school
districts, including all urban and 63 out of 65 major suburban
districts. The second most frequently cited reasons for student
expulsions (2,055) were for all other serious offenses listed
in Section 37.007 (a), (c), (d) and (f) of the Education Code.
For the 1996-97 school year, based on January 1997 total
student enrollment (1,144) in Juvenile Justice Alternative Education
Programs, the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission now projects
that approximately 2,300 total expelled adjudicated students
will be served in the 22 mandated county programs during the
school year. JJAEP enrollment projections have steadily declined
since September 1996 estimates. Some slowdown has been due to
lack of space available in county facilities, and to a narrowly
defined implementation of the statute (e.g., only those students
committing certain offenses on school property). Also, most
counties and districts did not include provision in their memoranda
of understanding for the larger population of "serious and persistent"
misbehavior students who are not adjudicated for less serious
(Class C) offenses.
Data from the Texas Education Agency
Chapter 37 survey on 1995-96 expulsions show that districts
in the 22 mandated counties reported 3,569 total expelled students
during the school year. Assuming that the difference between
the 2,300 current projected JJAEP figure and the 3,569 actual
students expelled figure were a good estimate on the number
of students not currently required to attend JJAEPs (i.e., "serious
and persistent misbehavior" expelled students), the estimates
on this bill use the figure 1,269 to approximate the potential
additional population of students to be served in JJAEPs under
this bill.
If 1,269 ADA are retained in the public school
system instead of expelled and are multiplied by an average
half-year expulsion period at $4,900 per student per year regular
program costs ($2,450), the cost to the state would be approximately
$3,109,050 per year for the additional students required to
remain in the system.
If 1,269 additional juveniles are adjudicated
and added to the case load for probation supervision, based
on current probation costs of $490 per juvenile per year, the
cost to the state would be an additional $621,810 per year for
hiring more probation officers. The annual additional costs
would total $3,730,860. These estimates are for students in
districts in the 22 mandated counties only; costs would be greater
if applied to all districts and counties statewide.
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
Five Year Impact:
Fiscal Year Probable
Savings/(Cost)
from General
Revenue Fund
0001
1998 ($3,730,860)
1998 (3,730,860)
2000 (3,730,860)
2001 (3,730,860)
2002 (3,730,860)
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
The probable fiscal implication to General Revenue related funds
during each of the first five years is estimated as follows:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1998 ($3,730,860)
1999 (3,730,860)
2000 (3,730,860)
2001 (3,730,860)
2002 (3,730,860)
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
The bill would imply additional costs for facilities in some
counties, based on the available space in currently leased or
purchased facilities for JJAEP programs, to accommodate the
increase in JJAEP student enrollments.
Other increases in
programs and operating costs would be covered under current
statutory provisions for flow-through funding from the school
district to the county on a per student basis for programs and
services, as negotiated between each school district and the
county.
Source: Agencies: 665 Juvenile Probation Commission
701 Texas Education Agency - Administration
LBB Staff: JK ,LP ,DH ,TH